Skip to main content

tv   Piers Morgan Tonight  CNN  April 3, 2012 3:00am-4:00am EDT

3:00 am
morgan tonight." tonight, what really happened on the night trayvon martin died? >> does he look hurt to you? >> i don't want to go out there. >> he said if he were defending george zimmerman, he would have a good chance of winning the case. we'll talk to a woman who know her way around a crime scene. best selling author and forensic expert patricia chron wall. >> it is not just winning the lefblg it is changing the country that's really important. >> wisconsin, maryland and d.c. vote tomorrow. the question mounts, will rick santorum stay in the race? we'll ask him tonight. also, keeping america great. the man behind ford's rebirth. turning down a bailout and turning his business around. plus, only in america, strurk by lightning after buying his mega millions ticket. if it wasn't for bad luck, he would have no luck at all. this is "piers morgan tonight." good evening. our big story, the death of
3:01 am
trayvon martin. unanswered questions are piling up in this case. two audio experts say the screams on a 911 call do not seem to be the voice of george zimmerman. the surveillance video on zimmerman at the sanford police department which an outside company for abc news seemed to show some kind of marks on the back of zimmerman's head. much more on that in a moment. just hours from now, republicans turned their epic battle to wisconsin, maryland and d.c. for tomorrow's vote. it will be the turning point of the race and how many candidates will be left standing? we'll hear from rick santorum very soon. first, our big story tonight. trayvon martin. what really happened the night he died? joining me, forensic experts patricia cornwell. and criminal defense attorney, allen derschwitz.
3:02 am
you've hinted if you were defending george zimmerman, you reckon you would have a pretty good chance at getting him off. >> unfortunately, florida has this absurd stand your ground law which makes it very, very difficult to successfully prosecute people who may have deliberately and willfully shot. all they have to do is raise a plausible claim of self-defense and all kinds of restrictions kick in. remember, there are two versions of what happened here and they're both rather extreme. the martin version, the martin family version is that zimmerman was following him. there was no provocation. he started the fight and then he shot him in cold blood. that would be very simple first-degree murder. the zimmerman account is equally simple minded. that is, the young man trayvon martin hit him from behind. jumped on top of him. grabbed for his gun sxmd you're going to die tonight. if that's the case, it is a simple case of self-defense.
3:03 am
when the forensics come out finally, when the autopsy comes out, we'll find it is a much more nuanced case. it will be on who hit the first blow. since there are no real witnesses, there may be reasonable doubt under florida law. >> patricia, forensics, forensics, forensics. never have i seen a case in recent times that could in the end have forensics be more important than this. >> that's exactly right. and he is exactly right. what we're waiting for is what did the medical examiner really find? what is the trajectory of the bullet? was it a contact wound? a slightly distant wound? is the location of the wound consistent with the handness of the shooter and what he says about where he was positioned at the time of the shooting? such as if he says he was on his back or they were standing up or who knows what? in addition, the gun. does it have trayvon's dna on it? does it have his fingerprints on
3:04 am
it, on it or the holster that might indicate anything. what is on the iced tea bottle. maybe there was some sort of struggle. the alleged wound to the back of the head. how do we know that wasn't caused by maybe somebody who was frighten asked hit somebody with their phone because that's all they have in their has not or a bottle. those should be checked for dna and evidence. the clothing should be chegd for trace evidence. >> when you saw the fbi, pictures of them crawling all over the crime scene, is this good or is it too late for this case? >> well, you know, i would like to think it is never too late themselves may get something just from the location. but there can't be anything left there now. this was back in february and it was raining that night, too, which makes it difficult. you know what happens, piers, when these kinds of terrible things occur, the police don't know how big it will be. they didn't realize the whole world would be watching this case when they went out there. >> how significant is this? let's have a look at this. this was a video that did the
3:05 am
rounds a few days ago. we all jumped on this and said, well, look, the guy is barely showing any signs of injury. he must be inventing his story. when you look at the enhanced video which abc had done, you can apparently see, we have to use these qualifying phrases. red marks all over zimmerman's top of his head. if that is genuine and they were inflicted by trayvon martin, how does that change the case you? don't know still. was that a defensive attack because someone else, trayvon had been hit first? we don't know. by the way, i hope they photographed those injuries. the medical expert needs to look at those to say, how do you know they're not self-inflicted? how do you know that somebody didn't want to make it look like they were attacked because they're waiting for the police and there's a dead body on the ground. >> you're down there on the ground in florida. the mood has been raging now for quite a while. people on both sides jumping on
3:06 am
every new piece of information that the media releases. we can see from the debate over this video. one minute it looks like it is very beneficial to the trayvon martin supporters' case. on the other side, today, you may argue it is actually helpful to george zimmerman and his case. what is the mood now right now? is it dangerous that the media keep putting this stuff out there and basically convicting or acquitting based on every new twist and turn? >> well, what i think is dangerous is that people take the facts that reporters are digging up and they're making suppositions. they're assuming what happened. they're trying to draw inferences. putting out the video was a journalistic enterprise. it became public domain. they provided it so people could look. when commentators looked at the video and said i don't see any wounds, the video was blurry. he might have had wounds. and we did hear that he got some
3:07 am
kind of medical attention in the back of a police car before he was taken to the police department. so blood may have been cleaned up. and cuts may have been attended. to i think the problem is that there is a huge amount of emotion. you've talked about this. we've had protests here in the tampa bay area in south florida, in sanford. they're still going on. people are still, checking money for the family. and i think people are really concerned about figuring out how effectively did the police go after this. was there some breakdown? some small town justice going on here? those are the questions people want. i think if we have factual reporting, people concentrating on trying to find out the facts of the case, we'll be much better off. >> alan, my view from the start of this has been a kind of incredulity. that george zimmerman wasn't arrested that night. i mean if this had happened in britain, he would have been arrested right then and there
3:08 am
and then face ad normal criminal legal process. and clearly, the authorities on the ground were split here as to whether he should have been or not. to let the guy just go home in the clothes he was wearing, with no apparent legal process even being commenced. it is that that seem to have really angered people. what do you think of this from a legal point of view? >> well, i think there's a big difference between arch is a formal legal proceeding for which you need probable cause under the statute. the statute makes arrest very difficult to achieve. but also, the other factor, they could have done much more forensically. they could have taken dna from under his nails. they could have taken his clothing away from him. they could have taken and programs they did, close-up photographs. i won a case a few years ago as a result of a photograph taken at a crime scene which purported to show a kind of killing, and then we were able to demonstrate if you blew up the photograph, it showed something very, very different.
3:09 am
the kinds of real-time forensic evidence that can be obtained only within minutes or hours after the crime is absolutely essential. if the police failed to do that, they really did fail to provide evidence that could give us the truth in this case. the arrest is a very different matter. because arrest is a legal proceeding that is required to pass muster under certain criteria, under the statute. this statute is a horrible statute. when you combine florida's penchant for guns. a couple years ago they tried to make it illegal even for a doctor to discuss gun ownership with his parents. everybody seems to have guns and then you have your stand your ground. you combine that together, it is a prescription for disaster. of course, for defense attorneys like me, it is wonderful because you win cases that you shouldn't win as a result of this statute. >> and it's important to note, that's exactly what has been happening. more and more people are now
3:10 am
getting off in these kinds of situations by using stand your ground. >> the interesting thing is most defense attorneys i know are against the stand your ground law. this is one thing where prosecutors, defense attorneys, police, everybody agrees, this is a horrible statute except the national rifle association. >> can i break in for a moment? >> i'm just going to may a clip here and i'll come to you after this. this is a clip we put together. it includes the screaming audio which i think has become very significant. >> do you need police, fire or medical? >> maybe both. i'm not sure. there is someone screaming outside. >> who was screaming there, robert? >> that's my brother. >> people can say anything they want to. i just personally don't believe i i know it was my son crying out for help. >> airing, let me come to you. you wanted to jump in there.
3:11 am
what did you want to say? >> one thing i wanted to point out. i'm no legal scholar but zimmerman's defense has always been self-defense. i think one of the issues we face here, is that stand your ground may not even apply. he claims he was attacked and he was defending himself. i think this would be a tough case even if we didn't have a stand your ground law. >> let's talk about this audio issue. we got both sides claiming it is on george's side, that it is him on. trayvon's side, that it is him. very significantly, i think, there is now been this independent study done for the orlando sentinel which seem to conclusively prove or certainly suggests very firmly, it is not the voice of george zimmerman, compared to the other audio of him. they haven't got audio on trayvon martin so they haven't been able to say it is definitely trayvon martin. but the law of deduction says if it is not george zimmerman, it is probably trayvon martin. >> i think the voice print comparison is really, really
3:12 am
interesting. a very old technology, believe it or not. it has been around since the 1940s. what i would hike to see done, i would like the same analysis done with trayvon's voice. i can't help but think someone will say, what if you got the same results when you analyzed his? plus, you have the difficulty of you're analyzing high pitch screaming. and i don't know what the exemplars they compared it with but it is probably somebody speaking. i think it would be tough in court. but i do think that forensic technology is viable as a great investigative tool. >> it seem on the forensic side, the local police have been incredibly lax. >> i hate to judge police. i think they don't realize this is a case that will be all around the world and they're working it, maybe it wasn't a high priority. >> the question i've asked quite
3:13 am
a few guests in the last few days frg it had been a white teenage boy who had been killed by a black man, i'm pretty certain there would have been an arrest. isn't that a fact that is causing a lot of the anger here? that it seems to have been just as skewed against a young teenage boy? >> that is the question bothering everyone. of course there's anger in that. i would caution against -- the thing bother manager is people are making so many assumptions. we don't know what would have happened if the race was reversed? they still would have had a young kid dressed in the street manner. neighbor police would have reacted the same way. they know of george zimmerman and they knew he had been helping as a neighborhood watch person. what i want to see, tv is great at channeling emotion. we've seen a lot of shows including yours channel people's emotion. at first there was a lot of sympathy for the family. we were doing stories because they were speaking up and the
3:14 am
local cops didn't seem to be doing their job. when the 911 tapes came out, even more sympathy. as zimmerman began to speak out, surrogates for zimmerman, his family, his attorneys, that began to waiver. and i think we have to be very careful to focus on the facts and on what happened. making suppositions about whether someone is injured or not, this 911 analysis, i'm very skeptical of it. i want to know facts. i would tell people, look at the orlando sentinel and the "miami herald" and our own paper. the newspapers have focused on facts. let's try to tone down on the emotion a little bit and focus on what we can find out. >> i wholeheartedly endorse everything you're saying. a last word? >> well, i think there is a big difference between facts and admissible facts. take, for example, the expert voice analysis. that's dramatic and terrific newspaper stuff.
3:15 am
not clear that that would be admissible in a trial because it has to pass a certain threshold of scientific credibility. so we may end up with a situation where we know facts, but the jury who ultimately hears case, if there is an arrest and prosecution, won't know those facts and you would get a disparity outcome. based on what the jury heard, there might be an acquittal. so nobody knows how this case will end up. it is much too nuances, we shouldn't accept the two extreme views until we've seen the forensic evidence. >> thank you all very much indeed. coming up, rick santorum and what could be the tipping point in his epic race. ♪ he was a 21st century global nomad ♪ ♪ home was an airport lounge and an ipad ♪
3:16 am
♪ made sure his credit score did not go bad ♪ ♪ with a free-credit-score-dot-com ♪ ♪ app that he had ♪ downloaded it in the himalayas ♪ ♪ while meditating like a true playa ♪ ♪ now when he's surfing down in chile'a ♪ ♪ he can see when his score is in danger ♪ ♪ if you're a mobile type on the go ♪ ♪ i suggest you take a tip from my bro ♪ ♪ and download the app that lets you know ♪ ♪ at free-credit-score-dot-com now let's go. ♪ vo: offer applies with enrollment in™.
3:17 am
3:18 am
what if i told you this man's big mandate health care. would you ever vote for him? what if i will you he supported radical environmental job killing cap and trade and the wall street bailouts?
3:19 am
and what if i will you he dramatically raised taxes and stuck taxpayers with the $1 billion shortfall? one more thing. what if i told you the man i'm about isn't him. it's him. >> that's the latest attack ad from rick santorum's campaign unleashed on mitt romney's positions. identical to president obama's and the candidate himself rick santorum joins me now. how are you? >> i'm good. i'm pleased to be here in ripping wisconsin. and actually at the home of the republican party and the little school house where the first meeting was. >> we're going to come to the republican race in a moment. i want to ask you first of all about the trayvon martin case which is showing no siphon losing any steam. a huge national debate going on about this. do you believe all things considered, all the information we now have, that it would be the correct thing to do for george z zimmerman to do, to be arrested? >> i'm not going to weigh into this case.
3:20 am
you say all the information we know. it seem like information keep coming out and conflicting information. i'm running for president of the united states. what we have to do is trust the criminal justice system. make sure that there is adequate oversight from the state level to make sure this case is being handled properly. and i'll let the local and state law enforcement agencies to figure this out. >> what about this stand your ground law? there is been so much attention based on this law. it does seem that it has been used by a lot of the wrong kinds of people now to avoid justice. would you accept that? >> well, the stand your ground law is to allow people to be able to protect themselves. and make sure that they have the right to self-defense. the idea that the stand your ground law means you can do anything but that is simply, well, simply that's not what the
3:21 am
hau is there to do. and i think the law has limited application. and i think in its application, it is proper. >> there's been another horrific incident today. a shooting at a university in oakland. at least seven people were killed. it raises the whole issue of gun laws in america. i'm aware that candidates run a mile on this debate. given the sheer number of cases of people getting access to firearms who simply shouldn't have them, who then go on to commit these crimes, is it time for a big review of gun law in america? >> no, it's not. i don't run from this debate at all. i run toward this debate. i believe that the right to bear arms is an essential right for our country. and people being able to enjoy the shooting sports, as well as to use guns to protect themselves from incidents like this.
3:22 am
the bottom line is what you're talk b is someone who had a firearm and used it for an illegal purpose. we don't know how they got it. the issue is not the availability of guns. the issue is the individual with regard to the use of that gun. it is not a firearms issue. it's a human issue. obviously a very sick and troubled person. but the idea that the gun is the issue here is simply off base. it is the person doing the act is the issue. >> let's turn to the gop race. obviously, a big night for you tomorrow night. you are facing potentially according to the polls, a triple whammy here. if you were to lose all three and mitt romney won all three, would you not be tempted to say, okay. that's it. i've had a great run. he is clearly going to be the nominee. >> i get that question more than how are you today? look, when we finished up with
3:23 am
the great one in louisiana at the end of march, won by 23 points. we had a great march. we won at love states in march and exceeded every expectations. we've done a great job in taking the seven loaves and fishes and turning it into 11 state wins. it's been a great opportunity. yet we knew that april would be a very tough month for us. this is a sires of states, rhode island and new york and connecticut and d.c. and maryland. these are not conservative states. and we have some states that we know we can run well in. wisconsin is one that we think we can run well in. pennsylvania, we know we can win. we can hopefully be competitive in one of the other states but we know that the month of may is rich with delegates and are strong states for us. states like texas and arkansas and kentucky, and indiana, west virginia, north carolina. those are the states that we
3:24 am
know we can get this right back to where it is right now, which is a lot closer than mitt romney and the pundits are spinning. a very close race and by the end of may, we expect this race to be very close to even. >> isn't it time that you and newt gingrich did a deal? because what impartial observers say, rick santorum will do so much better if the traditional conservative vote in the republican party wasn't still continuing to be split, and they're assuming at some stage, you and newt gingrich get in a room together. thrash it out and out of this comes one true conservative voice which could be much more successful against mitt romney than having that. >> no question, here in the state of wisconsin, we're down by a handful of points. if you take ron paul and newt gingrich, they're around 20%. if we want a majority of those
3:25 am
votes, even in the polls today, we would be either tied or ahead. it's hard enough going up against four or five to one, being outspent, having all the establishment and the national media focus on, this race should be over. it's the best thing for the republican party, which i don't believe is true. we're up against a lot in the state of wisconsin. and yet we're hanging in there. and i think it shows you the weakness of governor romney's message and the messenger himself. and one of the reasons we have to take this race the whole way out and try to get a conservative nominee who has the best chance of beating barack obama. so we're still committed to following this thing through. and it has nothing to do with me. it has to do with sure we have the best chance to do the most important thing for our country. to defeat this president and put in someone who believes in limited government and the unlimited potential of the american people. >> a question before we go to a break.
3:26 am
at what point would you judge as a politically astute man that this would become damaging for you to stay in the race if it was perceived that you were damaging the chances of the party to defeat barack obama? >> i'm going to make the decision on whether it good for me or not best for me. i believe what's best for the country is to make sure that we have the strongest possible nominee. because only once since grover cleveland lost re-election back two centuries ago that we've been able to defeat a democratic incumbent president. we didn't do it with a moderate republican. many times, they forced the republican moderates to win an election. and almost every time, every time we've lost since that election of grover cleveland. the only time we won was with
3:27 am
ronald reagan. a principled conservative. that made all the difference. a lucky strike their for rick santorum. sorry. sore knee. blast of cold feels nice. why don't you use bengay zero degrees? it's the one you store in the freezer. same medicated pain reliever used by physical therapists. that's chilly. [ male announcer ] new bengay zero degrees. freeze and move on. ♪ i can do anything ♪ i can do anything today ♪ i can go anywhere ♪ i can go anywhere today ♪ la la la la la la la [ male announcer ] dow solutions help millions of people
3:28 am
by helping to make gluten free bread that doesn't taste gluten free. together, the elements of science and the human element can solve anything. solutionism. the new optimism. on december 21st polar shifts will reverse the earth's gravitational pull and hurtle us all into space. which would render retirement planning unnecessary. but say the sun rises on december 22nd, and you still need to retire. td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life. we'll even throw in up to $600 when you open a new account or roll over an old 401(k). so who's in control now, mayans?
3:29 am
3:30 am
a lucky strike their for rick santorum. was that a lucky strike? i'm told by experts in the world of bowling that actually, your
3:31 am
technique is very good. >> i bowled as a kid when i was a kid. i had my own bowling ball when i was younger. it's been a long time. we went out to sheboygan. and i said i haven't bold in years and years. i ended up, first of all i didn't get a strike and then i threw three strikes in a row. we decided we would have a bunch of rallies. we called them rallies at the alleys and we've been bowling all over the state of wisconsin. i faced up against a tough opponent. a 16-year-old girl who was a very good bowler, i might add. she had an offgame and i got lucky and i edged her by two pins. >> i can see you're very pleased about that. let's talk about health care. >> i was.
3:32 am
>> here's a question. you are a christian, famously, you are a catholic, famously, you would consider yourself, i'm sure, because of your religious beliefs to be a caring and kind man by nature. that would be what you would perceive to be a man who follows faith as much as you do. how could you be happy from that position in telling 30 million americans who are now hoping and expecting to be brought under health care cover in america when they couldn't have afforded it otherwise, you won't get it. that is going to be my position. my first act as president would be to throw that out so you guys don't get health cover. >> well, i would say to 300 million americans that my first act as president is to liberate you from a government program that is going to dictate to you not only your economic choices when it comes to health care, but your religious choices when it comes to health care. and that's not what the role of the government is, to take over a sector of the economy and to dictate what people are or are
3:33 am
not going get to to fashion that sector of the economy, according to the government's edict. that's ant athletic cal to everything we believe in in america. what i have said, what i've focused on in the time i've been in congress was sure that everybody has the opportunity to purchase the health care that best suits them. that the government, and i've been very up front about this. that the government has had a role of supporting those choices. and we've done it in the past with subsidizing employers who provide employer-provided health insurance but we have be provided any equal tax treatment to those who don't have employer provided health insurance. 15 years ago, i authored a bill along with actually co-authored it. dick armey was the author of it. i authorized the version of it to provide better and equal treatment to those who don't have employer provided insurance.
3:34 am
there's no reason it is tied to employment. it made sense maybe 40, 50 years ago when people didn't change jobs very much. but today to have employer-based insurance doesn't make any sense. we need to mift away from the employer. give the power to the individual to go out and buy the insurance policy that best suits them. help with some tax support for the federal government to do that for all income levels, including a refundable level for lower income and create a system where you, the individual, control what health insurance and action sense to health care that you want, instead of turning all that money over to the government and letting them make that decision for you. >> that was a masterful political answer. what would you say as a christian to the 30 million people who are pretty impoverished, that's why they've been brought into this health care by president obama. what do you say to them? as a christian, as a catholic, you won't get health cover. >> i just anxious that had question. we're going to provide as i said, for those who are lower
3:35 am
income, obviously if you're very low income, you qualify for medicaid and even today, under certain states, you don't have to be that low income to cover. they have fairly high income thresholds, depending on the state. for those in the middle, don't have employer provided insurance. don't have enough money to go buy it on their own. we talked about a refundable tax credit. you get money not just from the tax you paid. you get your taxes refund. if you don't pay enough taxes, equal to the am of what the subsidy to be eligible for, the government would send you a check. we would in fact provide support for, depending on the income level, support for people to go out and purchase health care. far less intrusive. far less regulatory in nature than what barack obama is doing in mandating a government-run health care system. >> what about people with preexisting conditions who would cease to get cover if you repealed this? >> my feeling is that if you
3:36 am
have insurance you should be able to keep your insurance irrespective of whether you change jobs or change insurance. so preexisting conditions, as long as you have insurance, you should never be barred from getting additional insurance. so that to me is carte blanche and i have no problem. most states by the way already have laws in place that do that. i would have no problem with a federal law that would do so, although i think if we could get all the states to do it, i would rather not do a federal law. that to me is a no brainer. if you go out and buy insurance, you should be able to move from insurance company to insurance company without losing your insurance because of a preexisting condition. >> you have a big night tomorrow night. either way, if you want to come on and celebrate a fantastic unexpected 56th requiring would love to see you. and conversely, if it all goes horribly wrong, i'll be a shoulder to cry on for you. >> what a wonderful gesture on
3:37 am
your part. i thank you very much. hopefully we'll get a chance to do that and celebrate a little bit. and i'll even bring my wife karen is here with me and ripping today. she passes on her very best. and hopefully we'll get a chance to celebrate tomorrow night. maybe bring her on the show with us. >> that would be terrific. i would really appreciate that. good luck. >> thank you, piers. coming up next, ford said no to the bailout. how are they doing it? talking about keeping america great.
3:38 am
3:39 am
3:40 am
3:41 am
tonight, keeping america great. that's the new lincoln mkz unveiled from ford. a $20 billion profit last year and the recovery comes without any bailout money at all. and he joins me now. quite an achievement. take me back to that moment when you guys had to decide whether to go for bailout money or not. >> well, when the industry went through the downturn, the good part at ford was we had a plan. we were in the pros he of boringing that plan and it was all about investing in product. coming together as a team to look at the reality. and to take the actions necessary to save the business while also continuing to invest in the business. so when the bailout discussion came down, we were part of that discussion in terms of supporting the industry. and at the end of the day, the
3:42 am
plan has served us very well in delivering great products to our customers and allowing the company to get back on a very firm foundation and a growing foundation going forward. >> there was this weird anomaly. sales of new cars are going through the roof and you guys are making huge profits as a result. along with most of your competitors. and yet gas prices have never been higher. i suppose the ignoramus among us would go, how does that work? why would people buy more cars when gas prices are so expensive? >> i think there are a couple factors running around. first, there is a lot of pent-up demand. over the last three or four years, the industry because of the economic environment, consumers put off purchasing a new car to the point where the average age of the car out there in the inventory of cars in the u.s. is over ten years old. so you have a lot of that pent-up demand. i think you're seeing employment accelerating.
3:43 am
when people get jobs, they need vehicles. and when people get jobs, people who are already in jobs feel more secure so i think that's a piece of it. that is helping to aid sales. i think with the high fuel prices with many consumers out there with older vehicle, they're at the newer vehicles, and particularly at ford in terms of the fuel economy and saying, you know what? it is maybe time to trade in my vehicle so i can get a fuel efficient vehicle. the great news is a number of years ago, we took a very strong point of view that fuel prices would continue to rise. we invested in technologies. both gasoline, hybrid and electrified vehicles. and now hopefully giving consumers a reason to buy a ford because of that fuel economy. so i think a number of those factors are really driving the growth in the market. >> let's take a short break. come back and talk the politics of all this. i want to know what you thought about the bailout in principle.
3:44 am
also, what you think about mitt romney opposing the bailout. [ male announcer ] break the grip of back or arthritis pain
3:45 am
3:46 am
3:47 am
with odor free aspercreme. powerful medicine relieves pain fast, with no odor. so all you notice is relief. aspercreme.
3:48 am
president obama there taking a shot at the republicans for being anti-bailout. i'm back with mark fields. what did you make of that? was barack obama right, even though ford didn't go down the bailout right, was effectively right to do what he the? >> i think when we had the situation in the industry, we went down to support the hearings down in washington. and it was really around the industry dynamics. we shared a lot of suppliers with some of our competitors. and we went down supporting the industry. so overall, when you look at it, we worked with politicians on both sides of the aisle. and at the end of the day, i think the industry is very healthy today. i think that speaks volumes in and of itself. >> so when mitt romney attacks the bailout, he got it completely wrong, didn't he? >> well, again, everybody has different viewpoints on this. and it could have taken a lot of different directions.
3:49 am
in our case at ford, we focused continuing on our plan and very importantly, continued to invest in product. when you do that and work on your competitiveness, consumers decide and the business wins. and i think that's true for us and i think right now, it is true for the industry. >> one of the big problems facing americans is unemployment, obviously. you have built an escape plant in louisville, kentucky. you also invested in $1.3 million in a mexico plant to build a new fusion and lincoln mkz. my argument is the same as with apple with all the employees in china. i had howard schultz from star talking about a new sense of moral capitalism where companies like starbucks apple and ford rather building big plants in people co should be building plants like that in america, shun the you? and bringing jobs home. even if it's more expensive to do that. >> we are bringing jobs back home.
3:50 am
we are bringing jobs back from china, japan, some jobs back from mexico, and literally over the next three to four years, we're adding about 12,000 jobs, the majority of them are hourly, some of them are salaried work with force. and we're looking at that in terms of investing our business, and we can make a business case to be competitive here in the united states. we will always invest here in the united states, that's exactly what we're doing. in addition to also investing in other countries where we conduct business and where we have plants and utilizing those assets. so it really is a balanced approach to drive employment. >> how many people do you employ worldwide? >> worldwide, we probably employ somewhere in the neighborhood of $160,000. >> how many of that would be in america. >> in the u.s. here, we employ about 22 or 23,000 salaried employees, and about 45 to 50,000 hourly employees.
3:51 am
>> and what was that initial figure you gave me, are they all salaried or hourly and salaried? >> no, that's hourly and salaried. as you can see, a large part of our employment is here in the u.s., it's obviously one of our most important markets and one where we have our research and development and manufacturing facilities. >> do you like the ideal of moral capitalism? i know it goes against the grain of most american businesses to think that way. the idea of taking a hit for the country, bringing back even more jobs here. more factories here, not opening a $1.3 million factory in mexico, but bringing it here. i believe if companies did that, americans would be so grateful for the contribution to the country they would go and buy your product anyway.
3:52 am
they would go and reward you. >> well, i think overall, it gets back to the thoughts of our founder, henry ford, his approach was where you do business, where you sell cars, also, you can make your cars in those countries. i want to also bring us back to, here in the u.s., we're going to be investing $16 billion here in the united states. part of it is with our supply base, part of it is investing in our facilities, investing great jobs in great careers. the other third of that is investment in r&d, which is very important. driving innovation, employing engineers coming out our universities. driving that employment is very important for us. and the united states is very important for us. just as other markets where we do business. >> you guys have done a great job, there's no question about that, and lots of people laude you as the company that didn't take the bailout, you're tough, you have let many people go,
3:53 am
that's been part of the process of rebuilding the company. what do you think personally as one of the people that's been instrumental in this. what does it take to be a great american in the modern america. >> as a business? >> yeah. >> well, i think overall, our lessons learned at ford as we've done through this interesting time in our history is have a plan and focus on that plan. and bring a group of folks together to develop that plan and really buy and commit to that. secondly is whether you're in a manufacturing business or a service business, keep investing in those products. keep investing in those services even during the darkest periods, we're seeing our investments in products, safety and fuel technology is paying off for us. and thirdly, doing it in a way in a brings a group of tal ended individuals and an organization together collaborating and
3:54 am
creating places where you can look at the data objectively, create safe environments where you can bring up issues, and then focus on solving them. and if you do those three things, i think you'll have success. and we've been fortunate in driving that approach over the last number of years, consumers are rewarding us for that, and we're using that as more motivation going-forward to continue to move the company forward and provide great products to our customers. >> you certainly have success. i wish you continued success. thank you for joining me. >> thank you, piers. coming up next, a real lightning strike for one lottery dreamer. tonight's only in america,
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
tonight's only in america, there's more chance of being hit by lightning than winning the mega millions lottery, that is true. there is a one in a million chance of being struck by a lightning bolt. imagine what the odds were on the nightmare scenario. buying a losing lottery ticket but still being struck by lightning. the answer is ridiculously high. bill purchased three tickets and told a friend after purchasing, i have a better chance being struck by lightning. he was right. bill went home to his house in wichita, kansas, praying he would win the cash when he was blessed by a lightning bolt.
3:59 am
>> there are some things with my memory that are going to be bothering me for a while. i wasn't burned. i had a little bit of an irregular heartbeat. >> he recovered in time to learn he wasn't one of the three mega million winners. the odds of being president are 1 in 10 million. the odds in climbing mount everest, 1 in 50 million. undeterred, bill did what all good americans would do in that situation. he dusted himself off and bought ten more lottery tickets. i wish you all the luck in the world. that's all for us tonight.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on